The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. I. The quasi-steady analysis
Abstract
The conventional aerodynamic analysis of flapping animal flight invokes the ‘quasisteady assumption’ to reduce a problem in dynamics to a succession of static conditions: it is assumed that the instantaneous forces on a flapping wing are equivalent to those for steady motion at the same instantaneous velocity and angle of attack. The validity of this assumption and the importance of unsteady aerodynamic effects have long been controversial topics. Weis-Fogh tested the assumption for hovering animal flight, where unsteady effects are most pronounced, and concluded that most insects indeed hover according to the principles of quasi-steady aerodynamics. The logical basis for his conclusion is reviewed in this paper, and it is shown that the available evidence remains ambiguous. The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight are re-examined in this series of six papers, and a conclusion opposite to Weis-Fogh’s is tentatively reached. New morphological and kinematic data for a variety of insects are presented in papers II and III, respectively. Paper IV offers an aerodynamic interpretation of the wing kinematics and a discussion on the possible roles of different aerodynamic mechanisms. A generalized vortex theory of hovering flight is derived in paper V, and provides a method of estimating the mean lift, induced power and induced velocity for unsteady as well as quasi-steady flight mechanisms. The new data, aerodynamic mechanisms and vortex theory are all combined in paper VI for an analysis of the lift and power requirements and other mechanical aspects of hovering flight. A large number of symbols are needed for the morphological, kinematic and aerodynamic analyses. Most of them appear in more than one paper of the series, and so a single comprehensive table defining the major symbols from all of the papers is presented at the end of this paper.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Aerodynamics of gliding flight in a falcon and other birds
Tucker, V. A., & Parrott, G. C. (1970) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.52.2.345 · Cited by 209
Cited by
How animals move: an integrative view
Dickinson, M. H., Farley, C. T., Full, R. J., Koehl, M. A. R., Kram, R., & Lehman, S. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.288.5463.100 · Cited by 1,633
Unsteady Aerodynamic Performance of Model Wings at Low Reynolds Numbers
Dickinson, M. H., & Götz, K. G. (1993) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.174.1.45 · Cited by 668
The aerodynamics of revolving wings I. Model hawkmoth wings
Usherwood, J. R., & Ellington, C. P. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.205.11.1547 · Cited by 398
Self-citationFlapping flight for biomimetic robotic insects: part I-system modeling
Deng, X., Schenato, L., Wu, W. C., & Sastry, S. S. (2006) · IEEE Transactions on Robotics · doi:10.1109/tro.2006.875480 · Cited by 355
Dragonfly Flight : II. Velocities, Accelerations and Kinematics of Flapping Flight
Wakeling, J. M., & Ellington, C. P. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.200.3.557 · Cited by 308
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellington, C. P.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1984-02-24
- Volume
- 305
- Issue
- 1122
- Pages
- 1-15
- ISSN
- 0080-4622 (ISSN-L)
- 2054-0280
- OpenAlex
- W2164511061
- Cited by
- 671
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. I. The quasi-steady analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1984.0049
- The paper
- Ellington, C. P. (1984). The aerodynamics of hovering insect flight. I. The quasi-steady analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1984.0049
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.